Passing of title in an unconditional sale depends on parties' intention, not mere retention of invoice or lorry receipt.

In an unconditional sale of goods, property passes when the parties intend title to pass, even if price has not been paid or physical delivery has not occurred. Goods dispatched against cash bills in the name of a named consignee, together with the surrounding circumstances, showed an intention to transfer ownership. Retention of the original invoice and lorry receipt did not preserve title, because a lorry receipt is not a document of title under the Sale of Goods Act, 1930. In the absence of accounts or other evidence showing continued ownership, the appellant could not establish title to the seized goods or claim their release.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant retained title to the goods under seizure and had locus standi to claim their release, or whether property in the goods had passed to the consignee on sale.

Analysis: The goods were dispatched against cash bills in the name of a named consignee, and the surrounding circumstances showed an intention to sell and transfer ownership. Under the law governing sale of goods, payment of price or physical delivery is not necessary for passing of property in an unconditional sale if the parties intend title to pass. Retention of the original invoice and lorry receipt did not preserve ownership, since a lorry receipt is not a document of title within the meaning of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930. In the absence of supporting accounts or other evidence of continued ownership, the appellant could not assert title to the goods.

Conclusion: The appellant had no title to the goods and no locus standi to claim them.

Ratio Decidendi: In an unconditional sale of goods, property passes when the parties intend it to pass, and retention of invoice or lorry receipt does not by itself prevent transfer of title.

---